Important citations under labour laws

1. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970- Sections 7 and 12: The High Court Of Calcutta has held in the case of MMTC LTD - Petitioner Versus Learned Fourth Industrial Tribunal & Others-Respondent that, “On the subject matter of regularization, for an employer and employee relationship- merely because Petitioner has not registered under the Act, or Contractor not licenced, contract between two cannot be held as sham and does not alter relationship between Petitioner and employees- the conclusion of the Tribunal that since concerned employees, i.e., contract labour, daily wagers, worked for 240 days in the previous year's regularization justified is unjust”. The High Court has said that in regularization there is no scope for any legitimate expectation. Regularization per se requires existence of vacancies to which regularization may be directed. In absence of any such finding, the decision and direction of the Tribunal that these workmen are employees of Petitioner on grounds of their having worked for more than 240 days in the previous year and therefore justified for regularization is untenable. 2014-IV-LLJ-750 (CAL).

2. Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948-Sections 85A, 86A: Naseer Ahmed Vs. The Director, ESI Corporation, BLR North -Peenya, BLR and Others: Petitioner is a Director of the Company accused of commission of offence of failure to pay contribution under the ESIC ACT - It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that “In order to sustain criminal prosecution under Section 86A against a Director of a Company, there must be prima facie material on record to establish that the Director was in-charge of and responsible to the Company for conduct of business of the Company at the time the offence was committed. In the absence of such proof or material, Petitioner-Director cannot be convicted”. 2015. (1) KAR.LJ.11-Hon'ble Judge Sri. RAM MOHAN REDDY; -Advocate for Petitioner was Sri.K.R. Anand.

3. Sec. 11 of the EPF Act gives statutory priority to the amount payable to employees over otherdebts. Contribution payable under the EPF Act shall be treated as first charge on the assets of the establishment. Such debt shall be paid in priority to all other debts including debts due to bank falling into the category of secured creditor. By virtue of non-obstante clause contained in Sec-529 A (1) of the Companies Act, statutory priority has been given to the workmen's dues and debts due to secured creditors over all others - EPF COMMISSIONER vs. O.L.OF ESSKAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD - CA no. 9620 of 2011 and CA nos. 9631, 9632 & 9633 of 2011(SC).

4. VRS scheme introduced by a Company does not entitle an employee as a matter of right to the benefits thereof. Decision to be taken only by the employer company except in cases where the scheme itself provides for retirement to take effect when the notice period comes to an end. Such scheme is part of Company's desire to weed out the dead-wood - S.L.P - CIVIL No. 31250 of 2011(SC).

5. Although no period of limitation is prescribed under the ID Act, that by itself would not give claimant a right to raise his claims as and when he fancies. The claimant cannot be allowed to remain idle for a long span of time and thereafter raise the dispute unless a cause of action arose at a belated stage or there is a continuous cause of action - Krishan Kumar vs. Delhi Jal Board, 2013-I-LLJ-469(DEL).

 

The author can also be reached at drgubbilegal@gmail.com